English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to compare smile attractiveness between one, three, and four premolar extraction protocols in patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions and to analyse the aesthetic influence of buccal and posterior corridor widths on smile attractiveness. The sample consisted of posed smile photographs obtained from 66 subjects, divided into three groups according to the treatment-extraction protocol. Group 1 was treated with one maxillary premolar extraction included 23 subjects, group 2 was treated with four premolar extractions included 23 subjects, and 20 patients in group 3 were treated with three premolar extractions. Buccal and posterior corridor widths of each photograph were measured in proportion to the smile width. To rate the posed smile photographs, panels of 70 orthodontists and 46 laypeople used a 10-point scale. There were no significant differences in smile attractiveness scores between the three groups and between orthodontists and laypeople. Also buccal and posterior corridor widths did not differ between the groups and they did not influence the aesthetic scores. It was concluded that smile attractiveness is similar in treatment protocols of one, three, and four premolar extractions and that widths of buccal and posterior corridors do not influence smile attractiveness in these groups.

Smile attractiveness in patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions treated with different tooth extraction protocols